Celestron Ultimas vs. Tele Vue Plossls?

This is probably a dangerous string to start, but here goes. . .

I would like to assemble a set of either Celestron Ultimas or Tele Vue plossls. On most rating web sites, they are similarly rated. Todd Gross gives the Ultimas the edge, Ed Ting loves his Tele Vues and everyone else has their own favorite.

THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE USED BOTH AND CAN MAKE AN HONEST COMPARISON (not just the champions of one of the other line), which do you find have better sharpness, contrast and light transmission for general use (both deep sky and planets)?

I have both Tele Vue plossls and Celestron Ultimas. And my conclusion is that it's really hard to see much of a difference. My personal farovite is the Celestron Ultima 30mm. If you're like me when it comes to pinching pennies. The Ultimas are cheaper and don't give anything away in quaility.

Peter:

I think it depends on the scope you use.

I have the Ultimas from 30mm down which are now with an 8" f/6 Dob at my fathers. They are fine eyepieces giving great views of anything you like to observe. But, in my f/4.5 scopes they /seemed/ to me to have more field curvature which makes the off axis image noticably poorer than with either TV Plossls or UO orthos.

I couldn't tell one lick of difference between the TV 32mm and the Ultima 30mm in that scope BTW. Which, I think is a testimony to the Ultima's performance at the better price point.

TV Plossls are really nice eyepieces in the faster scopes and I also use the UO orthos in f/4.5 instruments as well. I have the UO ortho 25mm - 4mm including the 6mm, and the later TV Plossls 32mm - 8mm. These /seemed/ to me to have flatter fields, yielding better correction off axis.

The only way you will be able to see the difference among these eyepieces is in a heads up side by side comparison in your particular scope. I still think there's value in picking a line and working on accumulating those eyepieces. The Ultimas or TV Plossls are parafocal within the line, each eyepiece in that line behaves more or less similiar to each other. UO orthos are not parafocal but they do have similiar characteristics that makes accumulating these as a set attractive.

I like any one of these as a set. Even though there is so much overlap amoung them, I really can't see any reason to get rid of them. The are relativley inexpensive, fine performing workhorse eyepieces. If I have more than one scope out then they willing and ready to work. And work very well.

Incidently I also have a 27mm and 15mm Pan, 9mm and 7mm Nagler and a 20mm UO Super Erfle, and believe it or not a 50mm Axiom. That eyepiece was a prize my wife won in a raffle at a star party. It works great, evenin my fast scopes! The only other eyepiece I would like to have is a 22mm Pan. (The new 17mm Nagler is an outstanding eyepiece, but I like the super wide fields in the higher powers in a Dob. +/-65deg AFOV is really much more comfortable for me.)

The point I want to make is the plain jane Plossls and orthos spend a lot time in the focuser. Despite the fancy stuff in the eyepiece case, in some circumstances they outperform the high dollar glass.


Steve Vegos